I have no bias in the matter. As a matter of intellectual fancy I find it interesting to ruminate upon the idea of legalized drugs (mainly because I would really like to smoke weed legally), but I am of two, equally split minds on the broader issue of whether the federal government should legalize all drugs. I have no particular affection for other of the debaters. Both have said positive things about me, and both have expressed acrimonious opinions about me. In any event, I was asked to vote on this debate by Kasmic.

Resolution, and BOP:

The issue is whether the United States Federal Government ("USFG") should legalize all drugs. The debate is normative because it involves opinions; the burdens of persuasion are equal. No debater has more of a persuasive burden or obligation than the other. To do otherwise would offend the purpose and spirit of the debate, would be manifestly unfair, and would offend other relevant goals, interests, and objectives. For a general discussion of this, see generally the voting guide linked on my profile.

For PRO to win, he will have to show that the USFG should legalize all drugs. For CON to win, he will have to show that the USFG should NOT legalize all drugs. So, CON may argue that some drugs may be legal, but others need not to win. PRO must cover more ground than CON. A better, and perhaps more fair wording of this resolution (for PRO) would be to simply say "On balance, most drugs which can be recreationally used should not be illegal." or something to that effect.

Arguments:

1. Pro opens by bragging about his prolific drug use, and makes an emotional appeal with regard to the effect that drugs have. (e.g. they "prepare us for a beautiful life" and "teach you that life isn't defined by your job" and etc.). While I agree that drugs are a thing that experience is a generally good source of qualification to speak with some semblance of expertise on, this is a proposal generally too brave for me to buy, without more. This would have been better left out of the debate. The meat of PRO's argument begins with Mill's harm principal; and discussion of freedom. PRO argues that drugs are outside the government's control because the government's exercise of the kind of imperious power required to do so unjustifiably intrudes on individual liberty. PRO proceeds to a discussion of the harms and benefits of such legalization, which was generally effective. In general, this round was poorly structured and should have been organized better. I don't like lists, as a judge, when I'm reading stuff. I like structure. Claim. Warrant. Impact. Tell me what you're trying to persuade me of. Give me the reason to support your claim. Tell me what it means. That's the way to do it. Always consider your reader when writing stuff.

Con says that the government should protect people from drugs, because they're harmful and the government should protect people from harm. The law, because it's the means to such protection, ought to be utilized to that end. The problem is that it's not enough to say, in light of PRO's arguments, that drug legalization in general does more harm than good because the principal that CON is relying on is that drugs are harmful. CON has to show that PRO's world is more harmful than PRO's world, and he has not done that in this round.

Based on this round, PRO should be giving me some way to measure his harm against CON's articulated harm.

2. PRO opens that CON doesn't rebut what he says, and that's correct, but I really don't care because rebuttals generally follow in this next round. PRO does, however, correctly state the issue posed by the resolution: "whether drug legalization" is more or less harmful than alternate worlds. I think his phraseology could be improved, but where PRO has, as he claims, shown that legalization is less harmful than the alternatives, he's carrying the day. Whether he showed, more specifically, that "legalization minimizes the harms of drug use" is another matter. The argument that drugs aren't inherently harmful contradicts his prior points, however. His argument in this instance should have been, to be consistent with his other points, that drug use whether harmful or not should not be illegal because doing so would offend individual liberty. He sort of got to that point, but danced around it. PRO correctly talks about the weakness of his opponent's arguments, relative to his and measured against their respective burdens. With regard to the distinction between decriminalization and legalization... I don't care. The debate is about legalization.

CON talks about PRO's point about experience. This more or less had the same impact that the experience point did: a de minimis one; that is to say, it is inconsequential. The harm principal rebuttals are weak, because CON really just says legalizing would increase use, and use is bad, therefore the impact would be harmful. That's not persuasive, where PRO has outlined statistics and specific instances of how to measure the harm of his world relative to CON's. CON needed to give me something more to work with; I am left with too many questions. How much use? How bad will that be? Will legalization lead to more abuse (use and abuse are not the same thing)? I am left without that and other relevant knowledge. My list of questions should not be interpreted as exhaustive, however. They simply show examples of what I needed to give him the point there. Tobacco doesn't cut it, because tobacco and drugs are not analogs; but the reason why I can't give him points on this is because he didn't lay the foundation for why I should consider them analogs. He just said "here, in this instance... blah blah blah." Then, in this other instance "blah blah blah" too. Same with alcohol. Heroin and booze are different. This is a specious comparison, without sufficient foundation for me to be reasonably persuaded by it. I needed something like "Alcohol and Tobacco are like more harmful, dangerous substances because [x], [y], and [z." What I saw, though, was nothing of the sort. It was just "allowing harmful substances ... to be legal" would "far out-weigh the benefits." It's not enough. I need more. (The sex with a minor point fell for the same reasons. There was just no foundation for me to buy the analogy.)

As an aside, I do not understand why so many people screw up BOP. But I digress.

3. Pro declares that CON's syllogism is "sh!t." Clearly that's a conduct violation, but I agree with the sense that his reasons are unpersuasive for the reasons that PRO lists and that I said above. This also lacked structure, and was irritating to read. Again... claim, warrant, impact. Write like that. Don't do these circuitous ramblings. CON does nothing to change the outcome here, and really the fact that he was so limited based on his earlier rounds really makes it impossible to turn the outcome here.

PRO wins because he showed that on balance, legalizing all drugs is less harmful than not legalizing. CON lost because he failed to sufficiently counter PRO's arguments, and did not establish that the federal government should "not legalize" all drugs. Suggestions to follow in subsequent post.

I have no bias in the matter. As a matter of intellectual fancy I find it interesting to ruminate upon the idea of legalized drugs (mainly because I would really like to smoke weed legally), but I am of two, equally split minds on the broader issue of whether the federal government should legalize all drugs. I have no particular affection for other of the debaters. Both have said positive things about me, and both have expressed acrimonious opinions about me. In any event, I was asked to vote on this debate by Kasmic.

Resolution, and BOP:

The issue is whether the United States Federal Government ("USFG") should legalize all drugs. The debate is normative because it involves opinions; the burdens of persuasion are equal. No debater has more of a persuasive burden or obligation than the other. To do otherwise would offend the purpose and spirit of the debate, would be manifestly unfair, and would offend other relevant goals, interests, and objectives. For a general discussion of this, see generally the voting guide linked on my profile.

For PRO to win, he will have to show that the USFG should legalize all drugs. For CON to win, he will have to show that the USFG should NOT legalize all drugs. So, CON may argue that some drugs may be legal, but others need not to win. PRO must cover more ground than CON. A better, and perhaps more fair wording of this resolution (for PRO) would be to simply say "On balance, most drugs which can be recreationally used should not be illegal." or something to that effect.

Arguments:

1. Pro opens by bragging about his prolific drug use, and makes an emotional appeal with regard to the effect that drugs have. (e.g. they "prepare us for a beautiful life" and "teach you that life isn't defined by your job" and etc.). While I agree that drugs are a thing that experience is a generally good source of qualification to speak with some semblance of expertise on, this is a proposal generally too brave for me to buy, without more. This would have been better left out of the debate. The meat of PRO's argument begins with Mill's harm principal; and discussion of freedom. PRO argues that drugs are outside the government's control because the government's exercise of the kind of imperious power required to do so unjustifiably intrudes on individual liberty. PRO proceeds to a discussion of the harms and benefits of such legalization, which was generally effective. In general, this round was poorly structured and should have been organized better. I don't like lists, as a judge, when I'm reading stuff. I like structure. Claim. Warrant. Impact. Tell me what you're trying to persuade me of. Give me the reason to support your claim. Tell me what it means. That's the way to do it. Always consider your reader when writing stuff.

Con says that the government should protect people from drugs, because they're harmful and the government should protect people from harm. The law, because it's the means to such protection, ought to be utilized to that end. The problem is that it's not enough to say, in light of PRO's arguments, that drug legalization in general does more harm than good because the principal that CON is relying on is that drugs are harmful. CON has to show that PRO's world is more harmful than PRO's world, and he has not done that in this round.

Based on this round, PRO should be giving me some way to measure his harm against CON's articulated harm.

2. PRO opens that CON doesn't rebut what he says, and that's correct, but I really don't care because rebuttals generally follow in this next round. PRO does, however, correctly state the issue posed by the resolution: "whether drug legalization" is more or less harmful than alternate worlds. I think his phraseology could be improved, but where PRO has, as he claims, shown that legalization is less harmful than the alternatives, he's carrying the day. Whether he showed, more specifically, that "legalization minimizes the harms of drug use" is another matter. The argument that drugs aren't inherently harmful contradicts his prior points, however. His argument in this instance should have been, to be consistent with his other points, that drug use whether harmful or not should not be illegal because doing so would offend individual liberty. He sort of got to that point, but danced around it. PRO correctly talks about the weakness of his opponent's arguments, relative to his and measured against their respective burdens. With regard to the distinction between decriminalization and legalization... I don't care. The debate is about legalization.

CON talks about PRO's point about experience. This more or less had the same impact that the experience point did: a de minimis one; that is to say, it is inconsequential. The harm principal rebuttals are weak, because CON really just says legalizing would increase use, and use is bad, therefore the impact would be harmful. That's not persuasive, where PRO has outlined statistics and specific instances of how to measure the harm of his world relative to CON's. CON needed to give me something more to work with; I am left with too many questions. How much use? How bad will that be? Will legalization lead to more abuse (use and abuse are not the same thing)? I am left without that and other relevant knowledge. My list of questions should not be interpreted as exhaustive, however. They simply show examples of what I needed to give him the point there. Tobacco doesn't cut it, because tobacco and drugs are not analogs; but the reason why I can't give him points on this is because he didn't lay the foundation for why I should consider them analogs. He just said "here, in this instance... blah blah blah." Then, in this other instance "blah blah blah" too. Same with alcohol. Heroin and booze are different. This is a specious comparison, without sufficient foundation for me to be reasonably persuaded by it. I needed something like "Alcohol and Tobacco are like more harmful, dangerous substances because [x], [y], and [z." What I saw, though, was nothing of the sort. It was just "allowing harmful substances ... to be legal" would "far out-weigh the benefits." It's not enough. I need more. (The sex with a minor point fell for the same reasons. There was just no foundation for me to buy the analogy.)

As an aside, I do not understand why so many people screw up BOP. But I digress.

3. Pro declares that CON's syllogism is "sh!t." Clearly that's a conduct violation, but I agree with the sense that his reasons are unpersuasive for the reasons that PRO lists and that I said above. This also lacked structure, and was irritating to read. Again... claim, warrant, impact. Write like that. Don't do these circuitous ramblings. CON does nothing to change the outcome here, and really the fact that he was so limited based on his earlier rounds really makes it impossible to turn the outcome here.

PRO wins because he showed that on balance, legalizing all drugs is less harmful than not legalizing. CON lost because he failed to sufficiently counter PRO's arguments, and did not establish that the federal government should "not legalize" all drugs. Suggestions to follow in subsequent post.

I have no bias in the matter. As a matter of intellectual fancy I find it interesting to ruminate upon the idea of legalized drugs (mainly because I would really like to smoke weed legally), but I am of two, equally split minds on the broader issue of whether the federal government should legalize all drugs. I have no particular affection for other of the debaters. Both have said positive things about me, and both have expressed acrimonious opinions about me. In any event, I was asked to vote on this debate by Kasmic.

Resolution, and BOP:

The issue is whether the United States Federal Government ("USFG") should legalize all drugs. The debate is normative because it involves opinions; the burdens of persuasion are equal. No debater has more of a persuasive burden or obligation than the other. To do otherwise would offend the purpose and spirit of the debate, would be manifestly unfair, and would offend other relevant goals, interests, and objectives. For a general discussion of this, see generally the voting guide linked on my profile.

For PRO to win, he will have to show that the USFG should legalize all drugs. For CON to win, he will have to show that the USFG should NOT legalize all drugs. So, CON may argue that some drugs may be legal, but others need not to win. PRO must cover more ground than CON. A better, and perhaps more fair wording of this resolution (for PRO) would be to simply say "On balance, most drugs which can be recreationally used should not be illegal." or something to that effect.

Arguments:

1. Pro opens by bragging about his prolific drug use, and makes an emotional appeal with regard to the effect that drugs have. (e.g. they "prepare us for a beautiful life" and "teach you that life isn't defined by your job" and etc.). While I agree that drugs are a thing that experience is a generally good source of qualification to speak with some semblance of expertise on, this is a proposal generally too brave for me to buy, without more. This would have been better left out of the debate. The meat of PRO's argument begins with Mill's harm principal; and discussion of freedom. PRO argues that drugs are outside the government's control because the government's exercise of the kind of imperious power required to do so unjustifiably intrudes on individual liberty. PRO proceeds to a discussion of the harms and benefits of such legalization, which was generally effective. In general, this round was poorly structured and should have been organized better. I don't like lists, as a judge, when I'm reading stuff. I like structure. Claim. Warrant. Impact. Tell me what you're trying to persuade me of. Give me the reason to support your claim. Tell me what it means. That's the way to do it. Always consider your reader when writing stuff.

Con says that the government should protect people from drugs, because they're harmful and the government should protect people from harm. The law, because it's the means to such protection, ought to be utilized to that end. The problem is that it's not enough to say, in light of PRO's arguments, that drug legalization in general does more harm than good because the principal that CON is relying on is that drugs are harmful. CON has to show that PRO's world is more harmful than CON's world, and he has not done that in this round.

Based on this round, PRO should be giving me some way to measure his harm against CON's articulated harm.

2. PRO opens that CON doesn't rebut what he says, and that's correct, but I really don't care because rebuttals generally follow in this next round. PRO does, however, correctly state the issue posed by the resolution: "whether drug legalization" IN WHOLE (so, not the legalization of a specific drug, but all drugs) is better in some way than in the alternate worlds. I think his phraseology could be improved, but where PRO has, as he claims, shown that legalization is less harmful than the alternatives, he's carrying the day. Whether he showed, more specifically, that "legalization minimizes the harms of drug use" is another matter. The argument that drugs aren't inherently harmful contradicts his prior points, however. His argument in this instance should have been, to be consistent with his other points, that drug use whether harmful or not should not be illegal because doing so would offend individual liberty. He sort of got to that point, but danced around it. PRO correctly talks about the weakness of his opponent's arguments, relative to his and measured against their respective burdens. With regard to the distinction between decriminalization and legalization... I don't care. The debate is about legalization.

CON talks about PRO's point about experience. This more or less had the same impact that the experience point did: a de minimis one; that is to say, it is inconsequential. The harm principal rebuttals are weak, because CON really just says legalizing would increase use, and use is bad, therefore the impact would be harmful. That's not persuasive, where PRO has outlined statistics and specific instances of how to measure the harm of his world relative to CON's. CON needed to give me something more to work with; I am left with too many questions. How much use? How bad will that be? Will legalization lead to more abuse (use and abuse are not the same thing)? I am left without that and other relevant knowledge. My list of questions should not be interpreted as exhaustive, however. They simply show examples of what I needed to give him the point there. Tobacco doesn't cut it, because tobacco and drugs are not analogs; but the reason why I can't give him points on this is because he didn't lay the foundation for why I should consider them analogs. He just said "here, in this instance... blah blah blah." Then, in this other instance "blah blah blah" too. Same with alcohol. Heroin and booze are different. This is a specious comparison, without sufficient foundation for me to be reasonably persuaded by it. I needed something like "Alcohol and Tobacco are like more harmful, dangerous substances because [x], [y], and [z." What I saw, though, was nothing of the sort. It was just "allowing harmful substances ... to be legal" would "far out-weigh the benefits." It's not enough. I need more. (The sex with a minor point fell for the same reasons. There was just no foundation for me to buy the analogy.)

As an aside, I do not understand why so many people screw up BOP. But I digress.

3. Pro declares that CON's syllogism is "sh!t." Clearly that's a conduct violation, but I agree with the sense that his reasons are unpersuasive for the reasons that PRO lists and that I said above. This also lacked structure, and was irritating to read. Again... claim, warrant, impact. Write like that. Don't do these circuitous ramblings. CON does nothing to change the outcome here, and really the fact that he was so limited based on his earlier rounds really makes it impossible to turn the outcome here.

PRO wins because he showed that on balance, legalizing all drugs is less harmful than not legalizing. CON lost because he failed to sufficiently counter PRO's arguments, and did not establish that the federal government should "not legalize" all drugs. Suggestions to follow in subsequent post.

I'm going to talk about three themes that apply to this debate, and other debates I've seen these two debaters engage in. The fact that I mention something in this instance does not necessarily imply anything about this debate; it's just feedback for them, based on my knowledge of them as debaters.

Theme: Precision.

This is a poorly worded resolution, due to its use of extreme language. "All" is a lot. All drugs? Really? Cocaine I can understand, but krokodyl? It's an insane position at best, and one that will offend most judges. I may be unbiased... but fair and evenhanded language is preferable to extreme language.

On the other hand, semantic garbage pisses me off. The tension between precision and semantic stuff irritates me. You have to think conceptually. If words are synonyms, or more or less synonymous, then just roll with it. In the alternative, don't equivocate.

These problems are resolved by thinking conceptually.

Theme: Structure

Debates must be structured. Stream of consciousness debates (even though I've done them) irritate me as a judge. As a rule, irritating judges is a bad thing to do. So don't do it. (Do as I say and not as I do? haha... yes.) Though if I did a serious debate now, on a serious topic, I would put more work into it. Stream of consciousness (read: not structured debates) are just lazy.

What is structure? If you imagine your arguments like a building, the structure is the frame. They're the bulwark on which all else sits. Signpost; give me a roadmap; etc. Give me the rundown of what your arguments are; then flesh them out; and then sum it up. Don't talk in circles.

Theme: Burden of Proof

Burdens of proof are like the most basic thing ever. Anyone who disagrees with what I am about to say is not only wrong, their theory of burdens defies the purpose and function of debate. So, if you disagree with me you're incompetent with regard to how debating works. Fortunately, incompetence can be remediated with education.

Education is as follows: the kind of resolution you're dealing with is what defines the BOP. If you're dealing with opinion stuff (e.g. "the USFG should legalize all drugs." or "cats are better than dogs" or "miley cirus's haircut makes her look like a bulldyke.") then you're always going to have equal burdens of persuasion.

Notice my use of the word "persuasion" in contrast with "proof." You don't have a burden of proof in an opinion debate. You have a burden to win me, the judge, to your way of thinking. You do this by offering reasons for me to agree with you. The more logical your case, the more likely I am to give a sh!t. I care less about the truth of what you're saying or validity of your arguments than I care about the way you go about winning me to your way of thinking.

So, win me to your way of thinking.

Remember:

Be precise. Structure your sh!t. Know what you've got to prove, and don'g fvck that up.

At 11/10/2015 1:54:15 AM, YYW wrote:PRO proceeds to a discussion of the harms and benefits of such legalization, which was generally effective. In general, this round was poorly structured and should have been organized better. I don't like lists, as a judge, when I'm reading stuff. I like structure. Claim. Warrant. Impact. Tell me what you're trying to persuade me of. Give me the reason to support your claim. Tell me what it means. That's the way to do it. Always consider your reader when writing stuff.

Can you elaborate on this - how would you structure a round when you're discussing harms and there's a bunch of distinct harms you're trying to include? What's wrong with a list in that situation?

If you'd like a vote on your debate, please send me a link. I'll do my best to offer a sufficient RFD in your favor.

Also: If you'd like to vote bomb a debate and need help crafting a sufficient RFD, let me know.

At 11/10/2015 1:54:15 AM, YYW wrote:PRO proceeds to a discussion of the harms and benefits of such legalization, which was generally effective. In general, this round was poorly structured and should have been organized better. I don't like lists, as a judge, when I'm reading stuff. I like structure. Claim. Warrant. Impact. Tell me what you're trying to persuade me of. Give me the reason to support your claim. Tell me what it means. That's the way to do it. Always consider your reader when writing stuff.

Can you elaborate on this - how would you structure a round when you're discussing harms and there's a bunch of distinct harms you're trying to include? What's wrong with a list in that situation?

Keep them in distinct paragraphs, under an actual subheading, but which are not numbered.

For example:

(2) Harms

There are many harms to legalizing Ben Carson, which I will explicate about below. Harms come in three kinds: moral, legal, and existential.

Moral harms: Ben Carson is a psychopathic killer who claims to have stabbed a motherfvcker with a knife. Being a killer, and trying to kill people are bad. Bad things should be illegal, therefore Carson should remain illegal.

Legal harms: Ben Carson is a shitload of legal liability. As I previously mentioned, motherfuckertriedtokillabrother. That's a legal risk, because murder is a crime. Therefore, to avoid the legal risk of a murder, Carson should be illegal.

Existential harms: Ben Carson destroys the meaning of words, and preaches an alternate reality which distorts the conscience of the American people. This is an existential harm, because language, being, and consciousness fall apart when politicians get to invent their own facts. Therefore, Carson should remain illegal.

Therefore, because of the moral, legal, and existential harms, Carson should be illegal.

At 11/10/2015 1:54:15 AM, YYW wrote:PRO proceeds to a discussion of the harms and benefits of such legalization, which was generally effective. In general, this round was poorly structured and should have been organized better. I don't like lists, as a judge, when I'm reading stuff. I like structure. Claim. Warrant. Impact. Tell me what you're trying to persuade me of. Give me the reason to support your claim. Tell me what it means. That's the way to do it. Always consider your reader when writing stuff.

Can you elaborate on this - how would you structure a round when you're discussing harms and there's a bunch of distinct harms you're trying to include? What's wrong with a list in that situation?

Keep them in distinct paragraphs, under an actual subheading, but which are not numbered.

For example:

(2) Harms

There are many harms to legalizing Ben Carson, which I will explicate about below. Harms come in three kinds: moral, legal, and existential.

Moral harms: Ben Carson is a psychopathic killer who claims to have stabbed a motherfvcker with a knife. Being a killer, and trying to kill people are bad. Bad things should be illegal, therefore Carson should remain illegal.

Legal harms: Ben Carson is a shitload of legal liability. As I previously mentioned, motherfuckertriedtokillabrother. That's a legal risk, because murder is a crime. Therefore, to avoid the legal risk of a murder, Carson should be illegal.

Existential harms: Ben Carson destroys the meaning of words, and preaches an alternate reality which distorts the conscience of the American people. This is an existential harm, because language, being, and consciousness fall apart when politicians get to invent their own facts. Therefore, Carson should remain illegal.

Therefore, because of the moral, legal, and existential harms, Carson should be illegal.

That structure works. Why do you think it's more effective/persuasive than the way I did it?

If you'd like a vote on your debate, please send me a link. I'll do my best to offer a sufficient RFD in your favor.

Also: If you'd like to vote bomb a debate and need help crafting a sufficient RFD, let me know.

At 11/10/2015 1:54:15 AM, YYW wrote:1. Pro opens by bragging about his prolific drug use, and makes an emotional appeal with regard to the effect that drugs have. (e.g. they "prepare us for a beautiful life" and "teach you that life isn't defined by your job" and etc.). While I agree that drugs are a thing that experience is a generally good source of qualification to speak with some semblance of expertise on, this is a proposal generally too brave for me to buy, without more. This would have been better left out of the debate.

I acutally liked this aspect of FT's argument. It reminded me of how a debate speaker in competition might start out an argument, and was kind of an entertaining attention getting device. It certainly got me interested in reading the rest of the debate.

At 11/10/2015 1:54:15 AM, YYW wrote:PRO proceeds to a discussion of the harms and benefits of such legalization, which was generally effective. In general, this round was poorly structured and should have been organized better. I don't like lists, as a judge, when I'm reading stuff. I like structure. Claim. Warrant. Impact. Tell me what you're trying to persuade me of. Give me the reason to support your claim. Tell me what it means. That's the way to do it. Always consider your reader when writing stuff.

Can you elaborate on this - how would you structure a round when you're discussing harms and there's a bunch of distinct harms you're trying to include? What's wrong with a list in that situation?

Keep them in distinct paragraphs, under an actual subheading, but which are not numbered.

For example:

(2) Harms

There are many harms to legalizing Ben Carson, which I will explicate about below. Harms come in three kinds: moral, legal, and existential.

Moral harms: Ben Carson is a psychopathic killer who claims to have stabbed a motherfvcker with a knife. Being a killer, and trying to kill people are bad. Bad things should be illegal, therefore Carson should remain illegal.

Legal harms: Ben Carson is a shitload of legal liability. As I previously mentioned, motherfuckertriedtokillabrother. That's a legal risk, because murder is a crime. Therefore, to avoid the legal risk of a murder, Carson should be illegal.

Existential harms: Ben Carson destroys the meaning of words, and preaches an alternate reality which distorts the conscience of the American people. This is an existential harm, because language, being, and consciousness fall apart when politicians get to invent their own facts. Therefore, Carson should remain illegal.

Therefore, because of the moral, legal, and existential harms, Carson should be illegal.

To be honest, I'd prefer a simpler structure to subheadings, e.g.:

(2) Harms

First, (randomperson) is a sociopathic killer. He claims to have stabbed a person with a knife. Being a killer and trying to kill people are bad. This leads to a moral harm. Moral harms should be illegal, therefore (RP) should be illegal. Second, (RP) poses a legal liability; as mentioned, he stabbed a person with a knife, therefore poses a legal risk, since murder is a crime. Therefore, to avoid the legal risk of a murder, (RP) should be illegal. Finally, (RP) destroys the meaning of words, and preaches an alternate reality which distorts the conscience of the American people. This is an existential harm, because language, being, and consciousness fall apart when politicians get to invent their own facts. Therefore, he should remain illegal.

At 11/10/2015 1:54:15 AM, YYW wrote:PRO proceeds to a discussion of the harms and benefits of such legalization, which was generally effective. In general, this round was poorly structured and should have been organized better. I don't like lists, as a judge, when I'm reading stuff. I like structure. Claim. Warrant. Impact. Tell me what you're trying to persuade me of. Give me the reason to support your claim. Tell me what it means. That's the way to do it. Always consider your reader when writing stuff.

Can you elaborate on this - how would you structure a round when you're discussing harms and there's a bunch of distinct harms you're trying to include? What's wrong with a list in that situation?

Keep them in distinct paragraphs, under an actual subheading, but which are not numbered.

For example:

(2) Harms

There are many harms to legalizing Ben Carson, which I will explicate about below. Harms come in three kinds: moral, legal, and existential.

Moral harms: Ben Carson is a psychopathic killer who claims to have stabbed a motherfvcker with a knife. Being a killer, and trying to kill people are bad. Bad things should be illegal, therefore Carson should remain illegal.

Legal harms: Ben Carson is a shitload of legal liability. As I previously mentioned, motherfuckertriedtokillabrother. That's a legal risk, because murder is a crime. Therefore, to avoid the legal risk of a murder, Carson should be illegal.

Existential harms: Ben Carson destroys the meaning of words, and preaches an alternate reality which distorts the conscience of the American people. This is an existential harm, because language, being, and consciousness fall apart when politicians get to invent their own facts. Therefore, Carson should remain illegal.

Therefore, because of the moral, legal, and existential harms, Carson should be illegal.

To be honest, I'd prefer a simpler structure to subheadings, e.g.:

(2) Harms

First, (randomperson) is a sociopathic killer. He claims to have stabbed a person with a knife. Being a killer and trying to kill people are bad. This leads to a moral harm. Moral harms should be illegal, therefore (RP) should be illegal. Second, (RP) poses a legal liability; as mentioned, he stabbed a person with a knife, therefore poses a legal risk, since murder is a crime. Therefore, to avoid the legal risk of a murder, (RP) should be illegal. Finally, (RP) destroys the meaning of words, and preaches an alternate reality which distorts the conscience of the American people. This is an existential harm, because language, being, and consciousness fall apart when politicians get to invent their own facts. Therefore, he should remain illegal.

At 11/12/2015 5:28:42 PM, tejretics wrote:First, (randomperson) is a sociopathic killer. He claims to have stabbed a person with a knife. Being a killer and trying to kill people are bad. This leads to a moral harm. Moral harms should be illegal, therefore (RP) should be illegal. Second, (RP) poses a legal liability; as mentioned, he stabbed a person with a knife, therefore poses a legal risk, since murder is a crime. Therefore, to avoid the legal risk of a murder, (RP) should be illegal. Finally, (RP) destroys the meaning of words, and preaches an alternate reality which distorts the conscience of the American people. This is an existential harm, because language, being, and consciousness fall apart when politicians get to invent their own facts. Therefore, he should remain illegal.

The whole point of discrete paragraphs is to separate ideas and make them easier to read, and follow.